This study examined and compared school attitudes, including academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation, using the School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R) in groups of students who varied in their potential for academic achievement and their actual academic achievement. The purpose of this study was to extend the current literature on giftedness, underachievement in gifted students, and low achievement in general. Furthermore, this exploratory study was designed to replicate and extend the research on the SAAS-R (Matthews & McBee, 2007; McCoach & Siegle, 2001; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a; McCoach & Siegle, 2003b; McCoach & Siegle, 2003c; Suldo et al., 2008). The sample consisted of 847 students from a Midwestern high school that had the potential to be placed in the following categories: gifted, nongifted, high achiever, low achiever, gifted high achiever, gifted underachiever, nongifted low achiever, or nongifted high achiever. Identification of gifted students was based on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), while achievement was based on grade point average (GPA). Overall, this study demonstrated evidence of adequate construct validity in the SAAS-R. Gifted students had more positive academic self-perceptions than nongifted students (p <0.001). High achievers had more positive attitudes than low achievers on all attitudes measured ( p <0.01). Gifted high achievers had more positive attitudes than gifted underachievers in the areas of academic self perceptions, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation (p <0.01). Gifted underachievers had lower motivation/self-regulation than nongifted low achievers (p <0.01). No students were classified as nongifted high achievers. Using attitude ratings, logistic regression analyses correctly classified gifted achievers and gifted underachievers with 85.9% accuracy in the five factor model and 86.7% accuracy in a two factor model including academic self-perceptions and motivation/self-regulation. Also, high achievers and low achievers were correctly classified with 80.6% accuracy in the five factor model and 80.3% accuracy in a two factor model including academic self-perceptions and motivation/self-regulation. Limitations and implications for practice and research are discussed. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]